Equipment and PC threat treshold

[Beni1941 3]

Greetings.  I was wondering... In chapter concerning building combat encounters, there is no mention of equipment that the PC have on themselves. Souldnt it modify the threat level ??? Because it is quite a difference should a PC with 1500xp spend would have in a meele combat sword,chainsword or a power blade. I will be grateful for any and all feedback from you guys/gals .


Sorry for my grammar, english is my second language.
 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Beni1941

[Bilateralrope 144]

There are so many things that can affect how well PCs do in a fight. How far apart everyone is when the fight starts. Do players stick to their preferred combat style or adapt to the situation. How available cover is to each side.

 

You will have to adjust the threat level to match your players.

[DeathByGrotz 544]

Ignore threat level entirely. Go with "what's plausibly there" instead. The encounter model was never a good way to run a game, not even in the game where it actually works.

[Gregorius21778 249]

I tend to ignore the threat leves alltogether. My approach

How often is this group(!) of NPC likely to "hit" over what number of combat turns?
How much damage are they likely to do and how much of it will be "soaked" by PC x, y or z?

This helps me to judge if the group in question is a threat AT ALL. If they are unlikely to hit and if hits are unlikely to HURT, they are no threat. Doesn´t meant that I don´t have such "opposition" in my game, but it means that I hand-wave the combat through after the initial combat roles of my PC. If they are able to deal harm, I ask myself further...

How many "hits" is one of that NPC likely to take from PC x,y or z before said NPC is "out"?
How many "hits" is PC x,y or zu likely to achieve in which number of combat turns, taking the circumstances of the encounter into account? (modifcation to the tests, SUPRISE etc)

That gives me a rough approx. on how long the combat is going to last. If the NPC have the potential to do damage, but it is likely that 4 out of 5 are mowed down by the first assault, I know that this encounter is not really a thread and is thereby unlikely to harm the characters seriously.


This means a lot more comparison then just looknig at "threat levels", but with all the gear that is possibly(!) available, one needs to do that. Luckly, the combat load-out of the PC will stop changing after some point (or is changing less), so after a mission or to, you will have a knack for your group. That you have head a little experience up to then is not hurting, either

Edited August 25, 2015 by Gregorius21778

[Beni1941 3]

Well, if you put it that way, it really makes sense :D Thank you all for replying Have a nice day !

[Lynata 2,228]

Ignore threat level entirely. Go with "what's plausibly there" instead. The encounter model was never a good way to run a game, not even in the game where it actually works.

 

Yeah. It's one of those interesting ideas that ultimately don't really add much to the game. I mean, it obviously depends on the group, but personally, I dislike "level-specific zones" in MMOs, and I certainly wouldn't want that sort of stuff to crop up in my P&P games either.

 

The GM should of course take care that their players have adequate challenges available, but at the same time, there should be options to take on enemies that are either way below or way beyond their capabilities, all depending on how they handle things and approach the mission.

 

This is where the "brain" part of the "brains and brawns" in roleplaying games comes in handy. And that's aside from the effect on immersion the choice and number of enemies compared to the situation would have.

[Beni1941 3]

Welp, tomorrow i will run my first home-made mission, and it will be just a combat side mission ( 2 of my players cant play during the week, so i am making a side mission for the rest of them) as a part of the Desolation of the Dead. That is why I was asking about the threat level. 
And,truthfully,you all helped me a great deal.
I am thinking of combing several of your ideas ( and ideas from other topics i have read today). Using tactics for the gangers, retreating, traps and so on. On the equipment side of things, nothing special, just autoguns, some shotguns and whatnot, but i have the feeling, that when i will first lay some suppressing fire, my players will have a great challenge ahead of them !  

[Bilateralrope 144]

Ignore threat level entirely. Go with "what's plausibly there" instead. The encounter model was never a good way to run a game, not even in the game where it actually works.

If done well it could provide a good starting point for inexperienced GMs. For example, you know that it's plausible for there to be a number of thugs at a warehouse, so you use the threat rating to decide the exact number.

 

But as GMs get more experienced they should stop using it.

[InquisitorAlexel 244]

 

 

Yeah. It's one of those interesting ideas that ultimately don't really add much to the game. I mean, it obviously depends on the group, but personally, I dislike "level-specific zones" in MMOs, and I certainly wouldn't want that sort of stuff to crop up in my P&P games either.

 

Agreed,

 

In my opinion, there is no use for a character to get higher XP if everything scales with it. I scale my encounters with many factors such as: strategy, equipment and base stats of the creatures they are fighting.

 

I also make the encounter fitting to the setting of the mission. And I design missions my players can win.

[madMAEXX 84]

I also make the encounter fitting to the setting of the mission. And I design missions my players can win.

 

 

This.

But also: If the players act really stupid and get themself into trouble, they couldn't realisticly survive: Give them a possibility to get out, but if they don't take it, kill them!

[DeathByGrotz 544]

 

Ignore threat level entirely. Go with "what's plausibly there" instead. The encounter model was never a good way to run a game, not even in the game where it actually works.

If done well it could provide a good starting point for inexperienced GMs. For example, you know that it's plausible for there to be a number of thugs at a warehouse, so you use the threat rating to decide the exact number.

 

But as GMs get more experienced they should stop using it.

 

I don't even think it's strictly necessary. When I started GMing, the system I used didn't even have something remotely resembling CR or an encounter model. What I found much, much more helpful was worldbuilding advice and emphasising the importance of causality and alternative solutions than "press attack, roll damage". How many goons does your average robber baron have, how likely is the town guard to help, and stuff like that helped me and my players a lot more than CR. With all those facts on the table, we didn't even need it.

[Commediante 75]

I used encounter balancing system in Only War a lot and it wasn't bad. Each encounter resulted in dramatic events, like taking critical damage or even burning fate points, but the situation was never fatal for the entire group. I'm looking forward to check out how it works in DH2.